Fighting back against liberal theology

[MagdalenaRita]

You really need to read what Bill said.

He did not say there are…

I did read what he said. While he did not say what you said, he did say,

The Church has long abandoned Pius’ fear of non-Catholic scholarship, it’s time everyone else does as well.

While I would agree we should not fear in the wordly sense, we should have a knowledge and a definite concern of modernism and it’s effects so we do not fall into it’s very traps and can fight it spiritually.

To coin a word such as Modernism as a synthesis of heresies is simply to make a broad and over-reaching term that does next to nothing to address the underlying driving forces.

That could be due to large numbers of Catholics no longer knowing what the past heresies were and not realizing that much of secularism and relativism (modernist thoughts) today come from ancient heresies and have been ingrained into our very cultures and yes into our Church. I will agree it does take some learning and studying of Church history to understand and realize that it is not a “bogey man” but isn’t that what the OP is trying to discuss and learn, what is “modernism” and how can we fight back.

 

[otjm]

Oh - you mean the Jesuit priest whom Pope Benedict spoke glowingly of in his book Spirit of the Liturgy and in his prior book (while Cardinal) Introduction to Christianity?

Okay…

 

[Sword_of_Fire]

Yeah I mean the man behind the Peking man and the piltdown man

 

[SeraficLeo]

the man behind the Peking man and the piltdown man

From what I read Chardin was invited to come along on the digs that resulted in those fossils. He didn’t lead or organize them or have any kind of supervision over them.

 

[TMC]

Yeah I mean the man behind the Peking man and the piltdown man

He was an accomplished paleontologist and with the team that discovered Peking man. I don’t think he was somehow “behind” Peking man, not sure what that means. Regardless, his scientific work seems like a positive, not a negative. He was not involved in Piltdown man (which turned out to be a hoax), although I suppose he may be one of the many people taken in by that hoax.

 

[Malcolm]

• Female Ordination
• an empty hell
• nothing sinful about homosexual acts
• nothing sinful about fornication
• confession is unnecessary
• divorce and remarriage is OK (without annulment)
• fasting is old fashioned
• churches should be sparse without much decoration for theological reasons
• the rosary is a superstition
• there is no Purgatory
• there is no Original Sin
• etc…

thank you for the short list

Why in heaven’s name did things like this ever come out of the mouths of the Catholic LEADERS ? I really want to know. Can anyone explain it to me ? Is it that difficult to show these things conflict with the constant teaching and practice of the church ? Weren’t our leaders sworn to defend the faith rather than CHANGE it into something they thought better ?

We can talk till the cows come home about different nuances of which intellectual hair to split but at the end of the day I think we have been betrayed by people who were supposed to protect us.

 

[otjm]

That could be due to large numbers of Catholics no longer knowing what the past heresies were and not realizing that much of secularism and relativism (modernist thoughts) today come from ancient heresies and have been ingrained into our very cultures and yes into our Church. I will agree it does take some learning and studying of Church history to understand and realize that it is not a “bogey man” but isn’t that what the OP is trying to discuss and learn, what is “modernism” and how can we fight back.

As noted, “modernism” no longer exists. There are a number of issues we are dealing with in the 21st century, but that pretty much self-destructed except among atheists, which are essentially irrelevant to this thread.

Issues of relativism, secularism and other issues Christianity faces today are not modernism. And the issues which many Catholics face are not driven by biblical scholarship in the late 19th and very early 20th centuries.

You can’t fight back against modernism as it simply doesn’t exist. other philosophical issues do exist, and as I said before, it is intellectual laziness to simply throw out a term one cannot define, to address issues which can be defined.

What we are left with is “I don’t understand that and I don’t like it, so I will label it with this word that sounds really powerful”. Some of the issues which underly the OP’s concerns are outside the teaching of the Magisterium. some are not, but the OP, following very conservative Cardinals and Bishops, appears to presume they speak for the Magisterium on those issues.

They don’t; they have opinions, and others have other opinions, but it is far more a matter of personal taste than it is something against what the Church teaches. The short of it is that the OP is not talking about Modernism as Pope Pius 10th used it, he is talking about issues that did not exist at the time of that Pope. He does not define what the issues are, but seems not able to understand what is or is not within the magisterial teachings.

 

[Sword_of_Fire]

According to the encyclical part of modernism is the idea that all dogmas find their foundations in the experience of the believer. Ergo tradition is nothing more than the communication of an original experience; thus everything is made subjective. This definitely exists today.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

In eye of most Europeans, we Americans are too black and white.

Not in the eyes of all of us. Europe, in my opinion, sank into a swamp of moral relativity, and has emerged with many moral values turned on their head.

Oh, I totally agree with you. However, I’m just saying that Europeans in general think we Americans are too “Black & White.”

I’m not saying I agree with them.

 

[Emeraldlady]

According to the encyclical part of modernism is the idea that all dogmas find their foundations in the experience of the believer. Ergo tradition is nothing more than the communication of an original experience; thus everything is made subjective. This definitely exists today.

So as we can discuss this point, can you cite the section from the encyclical.

 

[billsherman]

• Female Ordination
• an empty hell
• nothing sinful about homosexual acts
• nothing sinful about fornication
• confession is unnecessary
• divorce and remarriage is OK (without annulment)
• fasting is old fashioned
• churches should be sparse without much decoration for theological reasons
• the rosary is a superstition
• there is no Purgatory
• there is no Original Sin
• etc…

These are all examples of extreme examples “liberal theology.”

This is the problem. Exactly NONE of these things are examples of Liberation Theology. You should probably pick up a copy of “A Theology of Liberation,” by Father Gustavo Gutierrez to get a real sense of what it is, and what it is not. It is a comprehensive school of theology, not a series of semi-random ideas.

To be helpful, here is a link: https://www.amazon.com/Theology-Lib...of+liberation&qid=1557352985&s=gateway&sr=8-2

 

[Dovekin]

These are all examples of extreme examples “liberal theology.” Some other that are more nuanced, which I will not go into.

How do you determine that these are “liberal theology”? Some, llike “an empty hell” have been supported by conservative theologians, like von Balthassar? St Bernard wrote that “ churches should be sparse without much decoration for theological reasons” almost 1000 years ago.

 

[Emeraldlady]

YourNameHere:

Liberal theology? Oh please.

Liberal theology exists. It’s not necessarily the same as liberal politics, but it does exist.

Some more extreme examples:

• Female Ordination
• an empty hell
• nothing sinful about homosexual acts
• nothing sinful about fornication
• confession is unnecessary
• divorce and remarriage is OK (without annulment)
• fasting is old fashioned
• churches should be sparse without much decoration for theological reasons
• the rosary is a superstition
• there is no Purgatory
• there is no Original Sin
• etc…

These are all examples of extreme examples “liberal theology.” Some other that are more nuanced, which I will not go into.

To ‘fight back against’ those is just a matter of directing people to Church teaching. Francis, Benedict, John Paul and Paul have covered them all pretty much with the Church’s official position.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

As noted, “modernism” no longer exists.

I see that you, yourself and an another anyonymous poster here on the internet have stated your belief that modernism does not exist but the reality is, that does not make it so.

it is intellectual laziness to simply throw out a term one cannot define,

I will not take the time to define what modernism is. I will let Father Scalia here in the very excellent video below explain and define modernism. I will warn you though, one of the first things he starts out saying in his talk is that there will be “academics and theologians” who will say modernism “does not exist”. He calls the belief that modernism does not exist “mistaken thinking”.

the OP, following very conservative Cardinals and Bishops, appears to presume they speak for the Magisterium on those issues.

He did not say they speak for the Magisterium but that he trusts them. We need good bishops and cardinals that we can trust to teach us true Catholicism and the two he mentioned are very faithful Catholics.

it is far more a matter of personal taste than it is something against what the Church teaches.

If you listen to Father’s talk you will see this is pretty much the foundation of modernism, personal tastes and opinions but not really knowing. You will hear quotes not only from Pope Pius X but Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict the XVI and Blessed John Henry Newman.

I really want to know. Can anyone explain it to me ? Is it that difficult to show these things conflict with the constant teaching and practice of the church ?

Perhaps Father Scalia’s talk below can help explain some of questions you are having. What is interesting is that some of the answers we are seeing here in this thread are exactly what he says is the danger in modernism.

He explains how modernism plays with words at the risk of souls and then Father Scalia quotes, Pope Pius X, “the play of words, is of no benefit to the man who wants above all things to know whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he is one day to fall.” In otherwords, modernism is a real and dangerous thing.

 

[po18guy]

I am slow on the uptake and it took me decades to realize this, but for all who have concerns about the Church, from mild to wild:

Pray.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

or all who have concerns about the Church, from mild to wild:

Pray.

I agree, buckle down, hold on and pray, God is in charge.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

• Female Ordination
• an empty hell
• nothing sinful about homosexual acts
• nothing sinful about fornication
• confession is unnecessary
• divorce and remarriage is OK (without annulment)
• fasting is old fashioned
• churches should be sparse without much decoration for theological reasons
• the rosary is a superstition
• there is no Purgatory
• there is no Original Sin
• etc…

These are all examples of extreme examples “liberal theology.”

This is the problem. Exactly NONE of these things are examples of Liberation Theology. You should probably pick up a copy of “A Theology of Liberation,” by Father Gustavo Gutierrez to get a real sense of what it is, and what it is not. It is a comprehensive school of theology, not a series of semi-random ideas.

To be helpful, here is a link: https://www.amazon.com/Theology-Lib...of+liberation&qid=1557352985&s=gateway&sr=8-2

I NEVER claimed to address Liberation Theology. “Liberation Theology” and “Liberal Theology” are not the same thing.

The OP asked about “liberal theology” not “liberation theology.”

God Bless

 

[billsherman]

I NEVER claimed to address Liberation Theology. “Liberation Theology” and “Liberal Theology” are not the same thing.

The OP asked about “liberal theology” not “liberation theology.”

God Bless

You’re right! That makes the whole thread kind of pointless though. “Liberal Theology” isn’t a thing. It seems that “Liberal Theology” is just a list of things various people don’t like. In a way that brings the whole thread full circle because modernism is also defined by most users of the term as just a collection of things they don’t like.

There are surely liberal theologians and conservative theologians, but that doesn’t make what they do “Liberal” or “Conservative” theology. Too many people want academic disciplines to be polarized in the same way their politics are polarized, and it doesn’t work that way.

 

[Dovekin]

I agree, buckle down, hold on and pray, God is in charge.

Yes, but then won’t we be making everything subjective?

According to the encyclical part of modernism is the idea that all dogmas find their foundations in the experience of the believer. Ergo tradition is nothing more than the communication of an original experience; thus everything is made subjective.

 

[otjm]

I get the impression that you think Cardinal Ratzinger, and then later as Pope Benedict was wrong.